Top of the World Lounge at Bay Lake Tower at Contemporary Resort - *2 New Parties Added! “Enchantment at the Top” & New “Bound to Be Bad” Dates Added

[Sandisw]

Yup, I honestly I wouldn't care at all if I owned resale elsewhere.

Or if they restricted some lounge with great animal views at AKV I wouldn't care one bit as a non AKV owner.

Sandisw seems to be the resident expert on the legal aspects of the contracts and I don't doubt for a second that we've never had contractual rights to the space, but it just struck me as a sort of common sense expectation that all owners/members/paying guests would have access to the features of a given resort. Maybe our frame of reference is wrong that we see totwl as part of BLT but it's really just a Disney asset to do with as they wish. Disney can do what they want with it and we can feel how we like (and piss & moan!) about it. It's not a right or wrong thing, it's subjective.

Others may tell us we shouldn't feel this way or that we should've seen it coming, but it seems small and petty and spiteful to me. I mean does including all BLT owners and paying guests really detract from what they're trying to accomplish? It's not enough to say blue card members from any resort have access along with BLT owners of any kind? Would that really take the shine away from the perk? This is why I keep making the jokes about being second class unwashed trash! As if our very presence would ruin the experience for the Disney nobility!

When BLT opened and the lounge opened with it, there were plenty of comments that it wouldn’t last and that once sold out, Disney would take it over for their own use,

There is a space at BWV called the Attic which was similar and then closed...it wasn’t open by the time I joined, but plenty of discussion to not expect TOTWL to go that way.

I think some were surprised it never did. I get it feels different but it really isn’t.

 

[Jenglish13]

Hindsight is often 20/20 but if you had asked about TOTWL 6 months ago or even 6 weeks ago, I bet some posters would have warned that its status could change. It was always an outlier among member perks and the 2+ year closure gave Disney/DVC the perfect opportunity to discuss its future status.

There is no exact parallel but the BoardWalk has a relatively obscure lounge called The Attic which used to be available to members. It's buried on the end of one of the villa wings, and is seemingly a perfect location for a DVC member exclusive. Over the years, I've heard some early BWV buyers vent that they were under the impression it was part of what they were buying. But many years ago it was closed off to everyone, and made available for only private parties.

(Maybe a return of The Attic will be the next shoe to drop. If so, we can be certain BWV resale owners won't have access.)


Thing is, you're the one who will help perpetuate such a stigma. Few people here--if any--would apply such labels to resale owners. I certainly respect your decision, even if I chose a different path.

Re: stigma, I'm just having a little bit of fun and as I said earlier it's at DVDs expense not specifics members. DVD are the ones responsible for the policies not members. And after all, It seems to me that most blue card members commenting here agree that restricting BLT owners is lame/stupid/wrong, etc.

 

[Sandisw]

I’m curious. Maybe I’ll start a poll too.

Does anyone support the Blue/White divide? I feel it would be informative to know.

I like that buying direct allows me to options I can’t get from resale.

But, if they got rid of it all and went back to what it was in 2009, when I first bought, I certainly would not be upset with DVD for no longer treating me with special perks.

 

[xdan0920]

I like that buying direct allows me to options I can’t get from resale.

Why though? Why do you like that resale can’t partake?

I guess that’s the existential question that I can’t get my mind around.

 

[xdan0920]

I look at it like this. I go on Stubhub and buy 4 tix to the Met game. The section I am, comes with access to “xyz” club. It doesn’t matter that I bought the ticket resale or direct. I still get access.

That’s how DVC should be. IMO. I bought direct. But if I sold my contract tomorrow, the new owner is buying my contact. Why should anything change for them? It’s nonsense.

 

[mrsap]

I look at it like this. I go on Stubhub and buy 4 tix to the Met game. The section I am, comes with access to “xyz” club. It doesn’t matter that I bought the ticket resale or direct. I still get access.

That’s how DVC should be. IMO. I bought direct. But if I sold my contract tomorrow, the new owner is buying my contact. Why should anything change for them? It’s nonsense.

Let’s Go Mets!!!

 

[UrsulaWantsYourSoul]

>Sandisw said:
>I like that buying direct allows me to options I can’t get from resale.

Why though? Why do you like that resale can’t partake?

You're extrapolating from Sandisw's response. Enjoying that you have perks doesn't necessarily mean you like that others don't have them. Just happy you have those perks. I do like your Mets club level example though.

 

[RanDIZ]

I look at it like this. I go on Stubhub and buy 4 tix to the Met game. The section I am, comes with access to “xyz” club. It doesn’t matter that I bought the ticket resale or direct. I still get access.

That’s how DVC should be. IMO. I bought direct. But if I sold my contract tomorrow, the new owner is buying my contact. Why should anything change for them? It’s nonsense.

That’s a great point. And it’s the same as buying a house in a community with amenities. You’re not locked out from those. The whole situation is a joke. And the best part is people paying thousands more for direct for little to no extras. And on top of it, getting charged even more for the extras being a direct member.

 

[Jenglish13]

I look at it like this. I go on Stubhub and buy 4 tix to the Met game. The section I am, comes with access to “xyz” club. It doesn’t matter that I bought the ticket resale or direct. I still get access.

That’s how DVC should be. IMO. I bought direct. But if I sold my contract tomorrow, the new owner is buying my contact. Why should anything change for them? It’s nonsense.

Ding ding ding. A million percent. It's like the car analogy I made earlier. If I buy a new car and sell it to you why wouldn't any remaining warranty transfer with it? In this case it's even far worse because A- not only are they voiding the warranty in this analogy, they are also removing the high end sound system I paid for and replacing with stock stereo and removing the upgraded tires and safety features, etc. before you take possession And B - they can also exercise ROFR on any resale.
It's inconceivable to me how some defend DVCs actions because they're allowed to by law.

 

[xdan0920]

>Sandisw said:
>I like that buying direct allows me to options I can’t get from resale.

You're extrapolating from Sandisw's response. Enjoying that you have perks doesn't necessarily mean you like that others don't have them. Just happy you have those perks. I do like your Mets club level example though.

I did ask specifically if people like having white card members. So by saying you like it, you are saying you like that you have perks that resale doesn’t.

The tix example seemed apropos, so glad it’s resonating.

 

[Sandisw]

Why though? Why do you like that resale can’t partake?

I guess that’s the existential question that I can’t get my mind around.

Because it costs more money to buy it, so getting the chance to get something extra is nice. Plus, I don’t think some of the things they give us would happen if everyone got them…like the AP…

So, I like that people DVD rewards those who choose to buy directly from them vs, someone else. I have used the example before…it’s like Costco…I pay for a more expensive membership and they give me 2% of my purchases back….so I shop there more and end up not only getting back the entire upgrade fee, I get about $30 extra too.

But, as I said, if DVD stopped the practice, or never makes another resort with restrictions, even though I own RIV, I can’t be mad or angry because it was my choice to buy this way in hopes of extras.

But you don’t buy resale from DVD…you buy from their competitor because it’s less expensive so I get why they don’t want to reward you for that, since most perks do cost them money.

Even this will cost them when it didnt before.

So, I am not bothered by them having different types of memberships with DVC…plenty of businesses have that…airlines, etc.

And, just like you, I can’t understand why anyone would be have an issue with a tiered approach for perks.

In terms of your example, the terms transfer because they allow them to transfer. I have a warranty on a product that is valid for as long as I own it but if I sell it to someone else, they don’t get the benefit.

Now, people don’t have to like that the DVC product doesn’t transfer benefits to others but why does a resale buyer think DVD should continue to pay for benefits when you weren’t their customer?

 

[Jenglish13]

Because it costs more money to buy it, so getting the chance to get something extra is nice. Plus, I don’t think some of the things they give us would happen if everyone got them…like the AP…

So, I like that people DVD rewards those who choose to buy directly from them vs, someone else. I have used the example before…it’s like Costco…I pay for a more expensive membership and they give me 2% of my purchases back….so I shop there more and end up not only getting back the entire upgrade fee, I get about $30 extra too.

But, as I said, if DVD stopped the practice, or never makes another resort with restrictions, even though I own RIV, I can’t be mad or angry because it was my choice to buy this way in hopes of extras.

But you don’t buy resale from DVD…you buy from their competitor because it’s less expensive so I get why they don’t want to reward you for that, since most perks do cost them money.

Even this will cost them when it didnt before.

So, I am not bothered by them having different types of memberships with DVC…plenty of businesses have that…airlines, etc.

And, just like you, I can’t understand why anyone would be have an issue with a tiered approach for perks.

The only part of your take that bothers me is the concept of resale as competition. Using the Mets tix analogy again, he's not competing with the Mets, he paid them for the product. It's now his to use or sell. Same with the car analogy too. I'm not competing with Toyota when I sell my used car. Most car manufacturers try to tout their resale values, why not DVC? Isn't that a big differentiator from other timeshares and major selling point for DVC?

 

[Sandisw]

Honestly and perhaps ironically, I like the concept. Basic tier for people who just want to book rooms and a VIP tier for those that want to partake in some luxury. I just wish there was more access/choice instead of the 150 direct point requirement. Despite what many say about the goal being to persuade people to buy direct at specific resorts, the real goal underneath that is to make the most money. Why not offer an add on? $350 per year a la carte, or $250 per year for the life of your contract if you commit up front?

So yes, offer it but lower the barrier to entry.

As we have mentioned, they could…but it’s not about the perks…it’s about buying direct points from them.

And, the 150 minimum is really more for getting back to owners having enough points. Some of us feel the move in the past 5 years or so to allow people into DVC with smaller contracts is what has and is contributing to the imbalance on studio bookings.

I would not be surprised if they come up with a pay for play type option for resale owners, but I can’t see it being something that will be inexpensive, especially if the whole purpose is to get people to buying direct points because that is where DVD makes its money. They make nothing from the resale buyer.

 

[Jenglish13]

As we have mentioned, they could…but it’s not about the perks…it’s about buying direct points from them.

And, the 150 minimum is really more for getting back to owners having enough points. Some of us feel the move in the past 5 years or so to allow people into DVC with smaller contracts is what has and is contributing to the imbalance on studio bookings.

I would not be surprised if they come up with a pay for play type option for resale owners, but I can’t see it being something that will be inexpensive, especially if the whole purpose is to get people to buying direct points because that is where DVD makes its money. They make nothing from the resale buyer.

There's an interesting distinction, DVD specific or Disney in general. Disney is making a ton of money from loyal customers returning each year to spend in parks shops and restaurants. But I guess we're (resale buyers) nothing but a nuisance to DVD. But I think the point xdan is making is that DVD already sold the contracts resale buyers now own. If they don't want them to remain in the hands of resale buyers they have the right to buy them back themselves. Imposing restrictions after passing and waiving ROFR seems fundamentally wrong and unfair to me.

 

[Sandisw]

The only part of your take that bothers me is the concept of resale as competition. Using the Mets tix analogy again, he's not competing with the Mets, he paid them for the product. It's now his to use or sell. Same with the car analogy too. I'm not competing with Toyota when I sell my used car. Most car manufacturers try to tout their resale values, why not DVC? Isn't that a big differentiator from other timeshares and major selling point for DVC?

But with the ticket analogy, that is a fixed product. They are for use at one game,

But let’s say they sold tickets to fill up the entire stadium and then decide they will add more seats to the ground and want to sell those too.

Those new seats do indeed become competition for the old seats so the ticket seller is going to want someone to buy those and not just replace that person who already bought.

DVD wants to sell more DVC points and increase the number of owners in the system to go with the new rooms they added to the system. So, they don’t want a new buyer to replace you…they want you to buy from them instead and see the number of owners grow.

So, the resale contracts are in direct competition with the direct contracts, whether people think of it that way or not.

Now, for years, when there were very few resorts, they didn’t care, The price difference between resale and direct wasn’t that big and so a healthy resale market helped them to sell contracts,

But now? They obviously think it’s better to enhance their product to get more buyers by limiting the use of the resale product.

Do I get it? I do and I made the choice to go direct because of it. Had there been no difference, like in 2009 when I first bought, I would not have and DVD would have lost out on the $$$ I just gave them for VGF.

Again, I am not trying to say direct buyers are better or buying direct is better…we are not and it isnt for many…

Of course, DVD didn't have to change the product to make direct different than resale. But they did and they did it for a reason…it makes them more money and honestly, that is the whole purpose of it all.

Its the same with any business…why does my local Chevy dealer offer free oil changes for their product as long as I own it? But if I sell, the new buyer loses that? Because that’s the way they want it.

 

[Brian Noble]

Does anyone support the Blue/White divide?

Disney Vacation Development Inc. does, and it turns out their opinion is the only one that matters.

Despite what many say about the goal being to persuade people to buy direct at specific resorts, the real goal underneath that is to make the most money. Why not offer an add on? $350 per year a la carte, or $250 per year for the life of your contract if you commit up front?

I suspect you vastly underestimate the profit in selling DVC points.

 

[RKS03]

When people reference tiered benefits do they mean if you pay different amounts you get benefits or you get different benefits depending on how many direct purchase points you’ve purchased?

 

[Brian Noble]

it turns out their opinion is the only one that matters.

Reflecting on this, this was unnecessarily snarky, and I apologize.

It would be better to put it this way: DVD does not consider existing owners to be customers, except to the extent that they might buy more points from Disney. Yes, there is some money to be made from the management contract, and DVD would prefer it if fewer Members tried to sell their ownership interests. But, in the grand scheme of things, those concerns are a distant second place to "how do we sell more points?"

 

[BeachClub2014]

Most car manufacturers try to tout their resale values, why not DVC? Isn't that a big differentiator from other timeshares and major selling point for DVC?

....perhaps, but the car manufacturers would much rather have you buy new cars. That's how they make money.

 

[Brian Noble]

When people reference tiered benefits do they mean if you pay different amounts you get benefits or you get different benefits depending on how many direct purchase points you’ve purchased?

In most other timeshare systems, it is the latter. Here's Wyndham's, for example:
https://clubwyndham.wyndhamdestinations.com/us/en/club-benefits/vip-by-wyndham

In that system, resale points do not count towards VIP levels, and if you have a "hybrid" account with both VIP-eligible points and resale points, you cannot use the VIP perks (e.g. extra housekeeping tokens) on reservations using resale points.

I think the conversation here about DVC might include both perspectives, based on recent rumors, etc.